DRM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

5 Points t o Failure -Free

Equipment Design

DRM TECHNOL OGI ES , I NC.
5 Points to Failure-Free Equipment Design
! 2003, DRM Technologies, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
36150 Dequindre Suite 510
Sterling Heights, MI 48310
Phone (586) 978-8810 Fax (586) 978-8924
www.drmtech.com

5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N
1
In September of 2002, a stamping plant located in the Chicago area was having
press availability problems caused by an electronic transfer feed (ETF) system.
The ETF is used to transfer parts between the various dies in the press. The plant
stated that the ETF was in a death spiral and they could not meet the current
production schedules. Overtime and maintenance dedicated to keeping the ETF
running was consuming the budget, and the engineering group was being held
accountable for all of the overtime associated with the ETF failures. The press was
a definite constraint in the plants lean manufacturing initiatives.
The central engineering group received funding for a redesign of the ETF to try to
remove the various failure modes and rescue the ETF from certain death. An ETF
design team was formed consisting of plant engineering, plant maintenance,
central engineering, the ETF build house and reliability and maintainability (R&M)
engineering personnel. The objective of the team was simply to improve the
overall availability of the ETF system for a reasonable price and within an
unreasonable amount of time - the same as any other project.
The team implemented the 5 Points to Failure-Free Equipment Design process
developed by DRM Technologies to expedite the design, build and installation
process. This comprehensive R&M process includes 1) Data Collection and
Analysis 2) Design for R&M 3) Life Cycle Cost Analysis 4) PM and Spare Parts
Analysis 5) Reliability Growth Analysis.
Meetings were conducted with the plant, builder, central engineering and the R&M
support group to lay out the plan of attack and to determine what key information
points were needed to implement this project. Initial meetings with plant production
indicated that a 95% uptime factor was required in order to meet the production
schedules. An uptime of 95% on the ETF would need a mean time between
failure (MTBF) of 500 hours and a mean time to repair (MTTR) of less than 1 hour.
These goals were steep, but the team thought the ETF carriage could meet these
requirements.
The team started with the data collection and analysis (Point 1). Information was
collected from the plants data collection system and interviews with various skilled
trades, supervision and management personnel were conducted. These
individuals provided solid information relating to failures, as well as design solutions
for fixing the failures. Also of importance to the design team was a review of data
collected from the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) to
see if various downtime incidents had been recorded. The CMMS data collection
method being used was where failure codes were entered into the system by
supervision. These codes were developed from maintenance tags filled out by the
various maintenance teams. This method of data collection presented a cloudy
picture of the downtime due to lack of detail and misrepresentation of the various
failure patterns. With data being recorded in this way it caused the R&M
engineering personnel to create various failure models that would filter out non
failure events and capture actual failure events.
5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


2
The initial data collected was analyzed and confirmed the reports from the various
interviews. The press was in a death spiral and within a short period of time the
press would make a better paper weight than a piece of automation. Initial data
showed that the original design specifications called for the press to operate at
451 cycles per hour; but due to the failure pattern of the press, it was only able to
reach 179.6 cycles per hour. This excessive amount of downtime was causing
production to off-load jobs to other presses, increasing the risk of potential failure in
those presses.
Armed with the analytical and interview data, the R&M engineers prepared a Point
1 report and presented the information to plant management and central
engineering. The results indicated that further funding for the redesign should be
pursued. The funding was approved and the project moved forward.
The results of Point 1 are illustrated in figure 1 below. Notice the major contributor
to failures was the bearings (cam followers) followed by carriage and rail failures. It
should be noted that the data collected on carriage and rail failure could be related
to cam follower failures. The information was miscoded when recorded in CMMS.
It is not illustrated that the rails and carriage were also major root causes of the
failure of the bearings.
ETF Syst em Hist ogram
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cam
Followers
Car riage Rails Broken
coupling
Not at
Target
LAE Twist Cross bar
f aul t s
Feed Hyd Unico Clamp
Fault
Failures

Figure 1 Failure Distribution

From the information collected during Point 1, Point 2, Design for R&M, was
started. In order to meet the production requirements the new design would need
an MTBF ! 500 hours, MTTR " 1 hour, and operational availability to be >95%.
The R&M engineers developed a hierarchical model for the equipment in order to
5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


3
develop failure cause relationships with the carriage. Figure 2 illustrates the
hierarchical model.
Figure 2 - ETF Hierarchical Model

Data from Point 1 indicated that the mechanical design of the carriage was
providing the highest source of failure for the ETF system. The electrical controls
were reviewed and, as listed in a Top 10 Failure List, the Unico drives systems
provided little probability of failure. Therefore, the key design issues for the
carriage were cam follower failures and weight and speed of the carriage.
The design team reviewed the programming for the acceleration and deceleration
for the drive system. The results of this review pointed out that by increasing the
ramps angle by one degree, it would result in a reduction of the load by 17%.
Reprogramming this ramp would have reduced the probability of failure in the
carriage and rails. However, this would cause the carriage to slow down which
would impact cycle times. This reprogramming was a last option design solution.
The R&M design team applied various design tools to remove and analyze the
different failures. These tools included:
! Environmental Analysis
! Weibul Analysis
! Hierarchical Modeling
! Mechanical Stress/Strength Analysis
! Machine Failure Mode Effects Analysis
! Fault Tree Analysis
! Design for Maintainability
ETF System
Carriage
Mechanical
Rails Mechanical Electrical Controls
(Unico Drives)
5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


4
! Finite Element Analysis
The hierarchical model developed for the system allowed the team to look at the
system level operations down to the lowest replacable units (LRU). The R&M
engineers applied various modeling methods to elaborate the various failure
patterns for the ETF system. The model allowed the design team to focus on high
probability of failures of the system.
The hierarchical models quickly identified that if the systems MTBF goal of 500
hours was to be reached, they needed bearings with a B
10
life of 18,000 hours.
This information was developed from a Wiebull analysis conducted by the R&M
engineering team. It must be noted that B
10
characteristic life represents where
10% of the bearing population would have failed by that point in time. However,
90% of the bearing would still be in service and would survive past that 18,000-
hour value.
The new design called for a steel carriage which would provide the necessary
strength for the new design. The major drawback was the steel carriage was going
to add over 500 lbs. of load to the system. A finite element analysis was
conducted on the carriage to review the impact of the added weight. The FEA
results illustrated that the additional weight did not impact the cam follower
operation and thus, nor its characteristic life. Additional analysis was also
completed on the drive systems ability to handle the additional weight of the
carriage. This also showed the drive had enough horsepower to keep the carriage
within the proper operating range.
Better weight distribution on the carriage also reduced the load on the bearings.
Using a statistical model for stress/strength interference the results indicated a
safety margin would be <1 resulting in a low probability of failure.
Each of the various failure modes were addressed by implementing a machinery
failure mode effects analysis (MFMEA). This tool was very valuable in determining
the potential failure modes, effects and causes of failure. The MFMEA allowed the
team to evaluate the different risk factors associated with each failure and develop
cost-effective design solutions for the ETF carriage.
Design for R&M (Point 2) used the various tools to provide confidence that
selecting the proper cam follower would provide the necessary uptime for
production requirements. This also resulted in a standardized design for the
carriage that can be used in other facilities with similar failures. Also noted was
that the quantifiable data led the team to have a high degree of confidence that the
design would achieve its MTBF goal of 500 hours.
An R&M Trade-off analysis was completed on the various bearings comparing the
cost, MTBF, PM schedules and other metrics associated with the bearings. The
R&M engineers applied a statistical model to the R&M trade-off data. The trade-off
analysis directed the design team to a 90mm cam follower. It was a common off-
the-shelf (COTS) part which met the MTTR requirements, but it was more costly
than the other bearings included in the trade-off analysis. The upside of this cam-
5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


5
follower was that it provided an 88.86% probability that the system MTBF of 500
hours could be reached, as well as provide the necessary carriage uptime to meet
production schedules. The increase of $400.00 to the project provided only a 12%
chance of failure during production hours. The design team was willing to take the
risk.
The new design moved the bearings to outboard locations on the carriage allowing
an efficient load distribution for each of the bearings. The new design was
constructed from structural steel instead of the cast aluminum from the older
design.
A life cycle cost (LCC) analysis (Point 3) provided the team with costs associated
with the different design activities. The LCC tracked the acquisition, operation and
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance costs associated with the design. The
results of the LCC analysis illustrated an initial cost savings to the plant of
$132,025.00. Table 1 illustrates the various costs associated with the carriage and
the lost production comparison between the old and new design.
LCC Category Old Design New Design Savings
PM Labor Costs $7,680.00 $64.00 $7,616.00
Unscheduled Maintenance $4,375.00 $2,100.00 $2,275.00
Spare Parts Costs $9,700.00 $550.00 $9,150.00
Maintenance Total Costs $21,755.00 $2,714.00 $19,041.00
Lost Production Units 27,429 13,306 14,123
Cost per Part $8.00 $8.00
Lost Revenue $219,432.00 $106,448.00 $112,984.00
Total $241,187.00 $109,162.00 $132,025.00

Table 1 Lost Production Projections
A reclaimed revenue projection analysis was completed for the new design and the
results of that calculation is illustrated in table 2. The results clearly point out that a
$500,000.00 return can be established when the carriage reaches an MTBF of 100
hours. These savings were developed from the reliability growth chart shown in
Figure 4.




5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


6


LCC Categories Old Design New Design Future State
Hours of Operations 4032 4032 4032
MTBF (hours) 13.41 25.22 100
Events 307 160 40
MTTR (minutes) 32 37 37
Part Costs $8.00 $8.00 $8.00
Job Loss 40,261 24,379 6,175
Potential Lost Revenue $322,088.00 $127,056.00 $49,400.00
Net Revenue Gain $127,056.80 $272,688.00
Reclaimed Revenue $195,031.20 $467,719.20

Table 2 Reclaim Revenue
The reclaimed revenue analysis clearly demonstrates that with the ETF system
achieving a 100-hour MTBF value, the reclaimed revenue would reach
$467,719.20 per year. The R&M design activities proved clearly that the ETF
system had a high probability of reaching its objectives.
A spare parts and PM analysis (Point 4) was also conducted as part of the overall
R&M plan for the redesign of the ETF carriage. The team evaluated the MFMEA
for high risk potentials and, using the software package called eRAM Notes

,
developed by DRM Technologies, Inc., the spare parts analysis was completed.
The spare parts analysis indicated that if a failure occurred, and since the spare
parts were COTS parts, they could be available at the plant within an hour. This
timeframe would meet the MTTR goal. The PM schedule was reduced significantly
from the past design. The tools required to complete the PM actions were already
being used by the trades personnel in the plant. In addition, the team
recommended to place visual factory placards on the ETF system highlighting
lubrication points, belt tension and spare part numbers. All of these elements
assisted the trades personnel in implementing the PM schedule.
Reliability Growth (Point 5) was used to determine from the data collected on the
floor if the design improvements were meeting the original objectives. The model
that was developed provided interesting data related to the old design versus the
new design. The RG model illustrated in Figure 3 shows that the original design
was in a death spiral and heading for complete failure. The current state RG graph
shown in Figure 4 shows the design improvements are impacting the ETFs uptime
5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


7
characteristic and shows the upward trend providing management with the
necessary confidence that the design is meeting design expectations.
CSP ETFRel Gr th Pl ot 8/ 1/ 02-12/ 20/ 02
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000 10000
Cummul ati veTi me
Week Endi ng23Aug02,
2183hour s of down
ti me.
Sl ope= Ri se/ Run= -2/ 5.1 =-.39

Figure 3 Old Designs Death Spiral

5 P O I N T S T O F A I L U E R F R E E D E S I G N


8
CSP ETFRel Gr thPl ot 1/ 1/ 03-1/ 31/ 03
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000 10000
Cummul ati veTi me
Sl ope =Ri se/ Run =3.3/ 4.6 =.717

Figure 4 New Designs Reliability Growth
In conclusion, the 5 Points of Failure Free Equipment Design process to this
project supplied a fast-track from design to installation. The process has provided
the plant with a quick return on investment, as well as a design standard that is
being used in other stamping facilities. Each additional hour of MTBF achieved
increased the reclaimed revenue due to reduced design times, spare parts, PM
schedules and unscheduled downtime events. All of these elements translate into
increased profits, reduced inventory costs, and moving the organization into a
Lean Manufacturing environment.
For additional information relating to this project, a reprint of the full case study is
available at www.drmtech.com.